Cool Infographic…on Infographics
These guys are putting the system on trial!
(click the image to go to full-size the infographic)
Bruce Bartlett: George W. Bush was a “Pretend” Conservative
A Guest Post from Textbroker
The interview by Bill Moyers of former Reagan and Bush advisor Bruce Bartlett, which was broadcast Friday night on PBS, has convinced me how the neo-conservatives have fumbled badly on the economy.
You can find the interview here: Bill Moyers: Where the Right Went Wrong
Where the right went wrong was the theme of the interview of Mr. Bartlett, who has been, and still is, considered a supporter of the conservative economic principles of smaller government and lower taxes. Bruce Bartlett was one of the architects of "supply side" economics, which formed the basis of American domestic policy under President Ronald Reagan. He also served as a treasury official under President George H. Bush. Recently, Mr. Bartlett has become one of the critics of current conservative economic policy. Among the observations made in the interview:
(1) Today's conservatives are phonies. He referred to President George W. Bush as a "pretend" conservative, and said he believes these policies have damaged the American economy. He now believes that the policy of lower taxes has gone too far.
(2) Taxes were much higher in the past. In the interview with Bill Moyers, Mr. Bartlett noted that in 1986 the tax rate on upper incomes was around 50 percent. Under George W. Bush, taxes were lowered, and Mr. Bartlett readily admits that reduced revenues in conjunction with greatly increased expenditures generated the huge debt that exists today.
(3) If not corrected, the budget situation will require dramatic cuts in popular programs. Those that will have to be reduced include Medicare and Medicaid. But he doubts whether such cuts will be politically acceptable.
(4) He sees a complete disconnect as to how many Americans view the issues of taxes and government spending. An example he gave was that of a TEA party member demanding that the government "keep its hands off" Medicare, which is of course a government program. He noted that many Americans do not realize how low taxes are today. He attributes this misunderstanding not only to the current level of political discourse but of the media's handling of the issue, and specifically mentioned how the center of misinformation is the Fox Network.
Eventually, the raising of taxes is the only way Mr. Bartlett believes the country can save itself. Their refusal to raise taxes is, according to him, where the right went wrong.
Clay Shirky: Why SOPA Was a Bad Idea
Clay Shirky breaks down the problems with SOPA into simple language that regular mortals can understand. Even though SOPA was axed for now, the video is still relevant, we'll see SOPA again in a different form.
Also, this guy used to sit next to me sometimes when he consulted for iVillage, back in the day.
I Want Out of Klout
by Brendan Delaney
Twitter's Complicity is Reckless
Klout is a site that claims to measure your influence in social media. Based on your activity and interactions on Twitter, it assigns you a number from 1 to 100. People with higher scores are considered better influencers, and they're rewarded with free stuff from advertisers. If they keep their Klout score high enough, they keep getting free stuff.
Most people seem to think that Klout is pretty harmless. It's a marketing scheme; a way for brands to connect with those people most likely to influence others to buy their stuff. And it's clever. But there's more to Klout than meets the eye. And not in a good way.
For starters, it's not an opt-in service. They rank everyone on Twitter. If you have a Twitter account, you have a Klout score. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. Go to www.klout.com/yourtwitterusername.
- Unfortunately, you can't cancel Klout
So, when I signed up for Twitter, I didn't know that I would be automatically enrolled in an enormous online contest without my consent. Had I known, I would have thought twice about joining. Will employers take my Klout score into account some day? Will I be turned down for a job because my Klout score isn't high enough? I would never want to work for a company that takes my Klout score into account, but that's beside the point. I want to know who died and made Klout the central authority on social media.
But let's not overreact. Perhaps my fears are unfounded. It's not like I can't opt out of it, right? I mean, if I send Klout an email saying "please cancel", they would be happy to oblige. Right?
Wrong. You can't opt out. And if you email them, they will tell you that.
And that scares me.
In short, Klout has created an account for me without my consent, harvested my tweets, and assigned me a grade based on the nonsense I post on Twitter. It's impossible for me to opt out, and everyone in the world can see my score. Employers could use my Klout score as an evaluation tool, and a lot of people take it seriously. Yikes.
But let's not forget...the real guilty party here is Twitter. Their complicity in all this is truly mind boggling. They're making a huge mistake - they violate their users' trust. Because right now, a signup for Twitter is basically a signup for Klout. You can log into your Klout account by using your Twitter credentials, even though you never signed up for Klout. Since Twitter is silent on the matter, I guess they're saying that if you don't want a Klout account, don't sign up for Twitter. It's as simple as that.
Clearly, Twitter needs to put a stop to this. If you want a Klout score, you should have to sign up with Klout. The fact that you're automatically enrolled and can't opt out is practically criminal. Eventually, they may change that. Klout says that they'll be introducing a set of privacy controls in the future. But they don't say when, and I shouldn't have to wait. I want out of Klout. And I want out now.
Google+ and The Social Media Backlash
by Brendan Delaney
Let's face it. A career in online media isn't always all that its cracked up to be. One of the challenges we face is staying on top of the endless stream of new media ventures launched by startups and established companies alike. Each new venture promises to vanquish rivals and reign supreme. But most end up being mere pretenders to the throne.
Brendan Delaney
However, staying informed is important. Many of us wouldn't have gotten as far as we have without a natural curiosity for new developments in online media. Staying informed helps us avoid that deer-in-the-headlights look when a client casually mentions a new website or mobile app. It gives us common ground, and helps establish us as thought leaders. That's why, when an old college buddy offered via Facebook to send me an invitation for Google+, I had to jump on it. Now, four days later, with five "adds" to my name, my inner dialogue is full of questions. Why am I doing this? Do I really need another social network? Aren't I happy with what I already have? The answer is, I think I may have hit the wall on social media. And I think I'm not the only one.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the "Big 3" social networks - Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. I don't like to brag, but with 267 Facebook friends, I am well over the average number of 150. (Though well under my wife's total of 400. Doh!) Frankly, I can barely contain my contempt for my real-world friends who aren't on Facebook. I wonder, do they ever get dizzy, watching the world pass them by?
On the professional side, I'm very active with LinkedIn. I'm in sales, and I find myself on LinkedIn at least 10 times a day...prospecting mostly, but also reading updates and checking who has viewed my profile. And I use Twitter on a personal level to follow comedians, and on a professional level for sales and marketing. With one of my Twitter accounts I have cleverly amassed nearly 7,000 followers. Which is easy to do, when you can purchase them for a penny each.
So clearly, I know what I'm doing. But when I recently got an email from Flickr saying someone had added me as a contact, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Flickr? Really? Isn't that the site that I had to join because I wanted to view a friend's wedding photos?
So for me, the time has come to draw the line. I'm sure that market research experts have a term for this...probably "social media fatigue" or something equally nondescript. Whatever it's called, it's fair to say that I don't want to be involved in any new social media. Enough is enough.
Looking back, I suppose I first came to this realization about a year and a half ago, when Philip Kaplan (aka PUD), founder of AdBrite, launched Blippy.com, a service that allowed people to publicly display all of their credit card purchases. I found myself wondering if that was perhaps a bridge too far. Why would anyone want to share that information? To PUD's credit, the venture was strong out of the gate. He secured millions in angel funding. It got tons of press, and even a mention on The Colbert Report. It turns out that there are a lot of people who are perfectly willing to share their online purchases with the world. But evidently there weren't enough. Blippy shut down in May.
So now I find myself asking similar questions with regard to Google+. Why would anyone need another social network? How many balls are we expected to keep in the air? Are the three major social networks not enough? Google+ is asking us to to juggle four balls. I say no thanks.
Like most people, I have better things to do than learn about a new social media platform, even if it is something I think I should be doing for my career. Sometimes being a leader in your industry means championing new ideas. But other times it means knowing when to pass on something because the investment isn't worth the benefit. This is one of those times.
So sorry Google+, I don't want to be your friend. I'm happy with what I've got. I connect with my personal friends on Facebook, my professional contacts on LinkedIn, and I follow my favorite comedians on Twitter. Google+ is just another also-ran that I don't have time for.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's just a matter of time until we experience a social media backlash. And Google+ may open the floodgates. It's possible that we're already starting to see it. Seth Green openly mocks the Google+ marketing efforts on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, saying that people who join it are part of "the new technological mafia". That's not a great start for the the company that claims its motto is "Don't Be Evil".
Update: Evidently Microsoft is considering throwing their hat into the social media ring as well, with socl.com. They mistakenly went live with the URL today. Maybe they'll see this blog post and think twice.
Jon Stewart Reacts to Arizona Shootings
Jon is particularly insightful about how, unfortunately, we can't draw a direct line between the vitriol in modern politics and causation of the Arizona shootings. But it would be great if we could.
Here is the link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction
Real News is Better Than Ever
Recently Ted Koppel wrote a column in the Washington Post basically lamenting the rise of news pundits and the death of “real” news.
He says,
“We are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we're now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers”.
He is referring to Americans’ tendency to flock to the news pundits that have come to dominate news media today, and only watch those that confirm their pre-existing beliefs.
It’s true that long gone are the days when the family would gather around the warm glow of the television to be fed whatever news the network deemed palatable. News media has become much more decentralized. If you include the major networks, cable television, web sites, and blogs, there are literally millions of potential sources for news. It’s also true that many Americans choose to ignore them in favor of watching a few talking heads who allow them to further entrench their beliefs rather than encourage them to consider a variety of perspectives on any given topic. But the fact that so many people refuse to seek out an alternative viewpoint speaks more to their own lack of initiative than to the notion that there is somehow something wrong with the way that modern news is being delivered today. Real news is more available than ever to those willing to seek it out. And though some would say we have become a nation of dittoheads (to borrow the term that describes the masses nodding along with Rush Limbaugh), that doesn’t mean that Americans would be better off if their news was instead filtered by a gatekeeper at a major network. Because to be an advocate for allowing just a few gatekeepers to deliver the news is to be an advocate for limiting the number of opportunities that Americans have to stay informed. And when finding a new perspective is as easy as changing the channel, the answer is not to limit the number of sources we have for news, but to encourage Americans to take better advantage of the many opportunities they have to broaden their base of understanding.
But many of us are indifferent to the notion that there might be an alternative perspective worth hearing, and instead just take for granted that our favorite pundit has the correct viewpoint. The fact that we seem to hold their opinions in such high regard shows a lack of understanding of why the news pundits are on T.V. to begin with - money.
There is an old saying in the news business,
“News is what happens between the commercials.”
Nowhere is that more evident than with the business model that has led to the rise of modern news pundits.
Some, like Ted Koppel, would believe that delivering the news should be a semi-altruistic endeavor that shouldn’t be tainted by financial motives. While it would be nice if this were true, this is pie-in-the-sky thinking. The truth is that the news media, must earn money in order to justify the efforts of everyone involved. So the reason that news media exists at all is to generate revenue by serving as a vehicle to distribute advertising. And this concept is hardly new. Even before our country existed, when Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richards Almanac was dispensing sage advice, he was running ads on the back pages for his Franklin Stove. He was motivated to deliver a quality publication in part, because he wanted to sell more stoves. (And the stoves didn’t even work well, but that is an aside). Later, in the 1890s William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were the publishers behind the yellow journalism that riled Americans and instigated the Spanish-American War. And sensational journalism survives today, as evidenced by a modern expression commonly heard in newsrooms, "If it bleeds, it leads.”
We need to stop holding the news pundits in such high regard and see them for what they really are; entertainers. At the end of the day, they are no different than your favorite actor or singer. The pundit who doesn’t put on a good show for their audience will be replaced by someone who will. So they are driven to say what they need to say to keep the ratings high, drive ad revenue, and stay on the air. It may sound cynical, but each news pundit really only has one goal; to keep their job. They’re like politicians that way.
Doing so means catering to the beliefs of the specific audience demographic that their show is designed to focus on. While some audience demographics are similar or may overlap (i.e., Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly’s) in aggregate they reflect the different segments of American politics. There are a lot of viewpoints, so there are a lot of pundits. The list includes Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Dylan Ratigan, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, John Stossel, Geraldo Rivera, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. Each has gotten their own slice of the television news audience. And while each show focuses on its own niche demographic with the intent of making money for their network, at the same time they provide us with easy access to varying viewpoints, and give us the ability to see what the “other side” is thinking. We should be taking advantage of this opportunity, if only to strengthen our own arguments and our own beliefs. And that’s exactly what the brightest Americans have been doing, and should continue to do.
It would have been nice to see Ted Koppel recognize that the torch has been passed to a new generation of news people, rather than wax nostalgic about the way it was. He ends up sounding out of touch, or like a caricature of an old-timer who says “Back in my day…” The problems that confront this nation are enormous, and Americans need to tackle them by gaining an understanding of all sides of the issues. Ted Koppel is at the end of his career, and while he may lament the loss of the traditional news anchor role, those of us who still have skin in the game need to deal with the world we live in today. It would be a mistake to legitimize the fairy tale notion that things would be better if our news was filtered by a few gatekeepers. The decentralization of news is a form of democracy, and it lays the foundation for the herculean effort we’ll have to put forth if we are to overcome the enormous problems that we face as a nation.